Le duodi 22 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Andreas Cadhalpun a écrit :
> I don't agree as I have already explained previously.
Fortunately, your arguments have no legal standing.
> Have a look at what some of the proprietary licenses require for distribution
> that has absolutely nothing to do with how the binary was built.
A lot of licenses have crazy and illegal clauses.
> For example, a license could allow distribution only under full moon,
> independently of when the binary was built.
Fortunately, the (L)GPL does not have such a crazy rule.
> Or, to take a more realistic example, the NVIDIA Software License [1] allows
> redistribution of it's software only if it is "designed exclusively for use
> on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems". That's completely independent
> of where or how the binary was built.
Ditto.
The (L)GPL does not have a rule against distributing a binary that can load
a proprietary file. That would make ffmpeg all but useless, I hope you
realize that, because most of the licenses for the multimedia files
themselves are GPL-incompatible.
Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20151212/5c8f1181/attachment.sig>